From: jimp@gonzo.specsol.net   
      
   David Canzi  wrote:   
   > Recently Arin... er... Bertie Taylor posted the following:   
   >   
   > | Concluding lines from a peer-reviewed 2013 paper by Arindam Banerjee   
   > | (related to his PhD work)   
   > |   
   > | The current literature does not  satisfactorily resolve theoretical and   
   > | experimental results as regards the recoil in rail guns.  This is an   
   > | important issue to resolve as there are new and valuable applications   
   > | possible if recoil does not occur.   
   > | In the past, rail gun research was used for military purposes, and this   
   > | trend continues. The stress was on making very high velocity   
   > | projectiles, for such purposes as knocking out incoming enemy missiles.   
   > | The lack of recoil in rail guns, as opposed to coil guns, has long been   
   > | noted.   
   >   
   > I did a Google search for "lack of recoil in rail guns" and found   
   > three hits.  One in groups.google.com, one in archive.org, and one   
   > in alixus.wordpress.com.  None of these sites appear to require   
   > peer review before they publish.  I tried the same search in Google   
   > Scholar and got nothing.   
   >   
   > If the lack of recoil in rail guns has long been noted, it has long   
   > been noted by very few people.  Some people are just chronically   
   > wrong, and their persistence is not evidence that they're right.   
      
   The US Army has spent over $150 million and the US Navy has spent over   
   $500 million on railguns and all of them had LOTS of recoil.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)